Murphy v. City of New York

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about January 9, 1995, which denied third-party defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony submitted by the parties, the work records of defendant Con Edison, and the reply affidavit of third-party defendant City Wide’s supervisor raise an issue of fact whether City Wide performed resurfacing work for Con Edison in the area of the street defect that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.